WHAT'S NEW

About
My Other Blog
Blog Schedule
Activism
Past Blog Posts
Various &
a Sundry Blogs Update 07/03/2026
Favorite
Websites--updated 07/03/2026'
My Stuff
On The Web, Updated 06/28/2026
Audio-Visual Updated: 07/30/2026
Favorite
Articles --
last updated 07/30/2026
This Month's Scripture Verse:

1 But false prophets also appeared among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. 2 Many will follow their indecent behavior, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; 3 and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep..
II Peter 2:1-3

SEARCH THIS BLOG

Showing posts with label Occupy Movement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy Movement. Show all posts

Monday, September 21, 2015

ONIM For September 21, 2015

Christian News

World News

Pick(s) Of The Litter

 

Monday, March 31, 2014

ONIM For March 31, 2014

Christian News


World News



Pick(s) Of The Litter

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Refining Revolution

Everybody knows that there is something seriously wrong with our country and that we need to change things. Even liberals recognize this. Conservatives think that what is wrong is the choice of personnel in our nation's capital and that what is needed is conservative control of the government. For if conservatives controlled the government, then government would either stop corrupting business by giving it an avenue to power or would quit hindering business from reaching its divine and market-dictated destinies.

Meanwhile, Liberals believe that our problems could be solved if Conservatives would just get out of the way of the President and his agenda. Unfortunately, the President's agenda includes more executive power (see the NDAA of 2012), the prosecution of whistleblowers, more for corporations (see the bailouts, corporate welfare, and lack of criminal prosecution of our Financial Services sector), bloated military budgets, and trade agreements, like the TPP, that increase corporate power, all of which has bipartisan support from both major political parties. 

So both Conservatives and Liberals recognize the need for change but the change desired revolves around personnel choices. Conservatives think that we need Conservatives to be in control while Liberals that there are too many Conservatives are there already. 

What remains unsaid is what the Left wants. And certainly the Left wants a change in personnel. But more than that, the Left wants a new system. The Left wants a more participatory system both in terms of economics as well as politics. This is what makes the Left revolutionary. The Left just doesn't want an overthrow of those running the current system, it wants a new system too. 

Before considering how to conduct this revolution, the Left needs to look in on past revolutions to see what it could learn. The first place from the past we should visit is the French Revolution. This revolution ended badly for all concerned. Why? It ended after much violence and with a similar end as beginning. It ended with an elite-centered government that waged war and brought destruction. And when one looks at the means of the revolution, one shouldn't be surprised at the results. Vengeance, not just change, was a major theme and thus violence was the immoral means relied on.

Compare the means and ends of the French Revolution with that of  Civil Rights activists in this country during the middle of the century. For many Civil Rights Activists, nonviolence was the means and the ends was a partial awakening of the country that won over both the apathetic and some opponents.

The nonviolent means used by many Civil Rights activists from the past outshines the nonviolent approach taken by my fellow Occupy activists. For though, generally speaking, we did not resort to physical violence even when bullied by some of the police, too many of us responded to police tactics with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "internal violence." Here, King was referring to the one's spirit and attitude and how it was expressed with words. Verbally attacking the police was not only wrong, it didn't consider the audience. Outside of watching us, despite the abuses of power, the police have a job many of us could not handle. They have to make quick decisions in what was sometimes life threatening situations. They have to deal with some of the worse in society on a regular basis and we failed to recognize the difficulty of their job. And that context amplifies the internal violence we sometimes exercised on the police. 

For a different approach, we should study how Civil Rights activists from the past caused the public to contrast their dignified response, as exercised by their abstaining from both external and internal violence, with the brute force of their opponents. The difference in behaviors between these activists and their oppressors won over much of the country. In contrast to these activists, whatever dignity our physically nonviolent approach merited was obscured by how we answered the police with our screaming accusations.

Another fault of the French Revolution was that it scapegoated the nobility and clergy. Certainly both were at fault and either oppressed or were complicit in persecuting the rest of the population. But unlike what would occur later in South Africa, there was only the desire to get revenge as opposed to seeking reconciliation and winning over their opponents. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) had two objectives. First, the crimes that occurred under apartheid had to be made public. Second, reconciliation was sought including the payment of reparations. And though there were problems with how processes were carried out, the existence of the commission itself stands as a model to be imitated and improved on. For rather than removing those who carried out and benefitted from apartheid from society with punitive actions, it sought to include them in a new South Africa.

The inclusion of the 1%, and here we will use the value 1 symbolically, is what the Occupy Movement did not seek to do when it declared its message through words and actions. In other words, any positive change that the Occupy Movement would achieve would not include the 1%. Such made the 1% harder to win over since they were made to be defensive about their control over the status quo. And it isn't that the Occupy Movement was wrong in specifying what the 1% was doing; rather, it was wrong in ostracizing the 1% rather than trying to win them over. What the 1% has created in our country and around the globe are two economic worlds: a world crafted for the benefit of the 1% and a world for the rest of us who, in most cases, must serve the whims of the 1% to survive. The separation between the 1% and the rest as seen in these two distinct worlds can be called an economic apartheid.

We had, and still have, a choice in describing the remedy for this economic apartheid. We could envision a new world where the 1% get what's coming to them or we could see a new world where the 1% would be included in a single economic world designed to benefit all.

However, implementation of the latter world fell short in South Africa. That is because while the political system was changed, the economic system was not. It still remained a world of investor domination over the economy. And because of that, the political freedom experienced by Blacks in South Africa has not been translated in economic uplift for the vast majority of South Africa's Blacks. We should note that any successful revolution cannot tolerate an elite-centered economy any more than it can tolerate an elite-centered political system. Thus, the problem for South Africa is that it may not be able to maintain its new political and social freedoms if they do not translate into economic betterment. Here, political and social freedoms might, in the future, be judged guilty by association with the maintenance of the old economic system. 

A similar problem to South Africa's political freedom not being followed by a new economic system occurred here. Martin Luther King saw this problem coming when he noticed how spending for the Vietnam War was taking away what was necessary to spend on people to change their economic plight. We should note that wealth disparity between the races in America has not grown smaller.

Finally, the greatest threat to any revolution is that of it being hijacked. This is especially true when the goal of a revolution is to establish and maintain a more participatory system. Somehow, parasitic authoritarians latch on pretending to be believers only to eventually seize control of the revolution so that there is only a change in players, not in the game being played. Thus, revolutions to overthrow tyrants have often produced more tyrants. The Russian and Iranian Revolutions provide examples of hijacked insurgencies. So has the recent Egyptian Revolution though that revolution continues.

One reason why people's revolutions are often taken over by opportunists is that the enthusiasm for displacing the current system is often much greater than the energy it takes to establish a participatory system. Participatory systems ask people to sacrifice some of their own pursuits to establish self-rule. These people are use to laissez-faire relationships with their government so that the only interaction they have with their government comes election time, that is if they have meaningful elections in the first place. Outside of that, they wanted a government that fulfilled their wishes and is non to low maintenance. Participatory political systems require that people invest their time, energy, and emotion into deciding how they will live as a group. The Occupy Movement gave a good, though not perfect, illustration of a participatory system. Certainly, the model of self-rule used by the Occupy Movement would not work with larger and more heterogeneous groups. But the idea that groups could practice self-rule was shown.

Of course, to enable people to be involved in a more participatory political system, our current economic system has to change. People cannot both work in today's full-time jobs and be more involved in local and national politics. It's impossible. 

And so we end up with needing to lead a moral revolution where people become more interested in self-rule than excessive prosperity so that they are willing to spend less time pursuing riches. This is the tradeoff people must accept to enjoy self-rule. It isn't that people must give up prosperity altogether. Rather, people must seek less personal prosperity in order to have enough time to exercise self-rule in a participatory system. Yes, that means that the rich will not be as rich, but it can also mean that the poor will not be as poor.

What we have learned about people's revolutions thus far is that they must be nonviolent and inclusive as well as introduce and get enough support for more participatory economic and political systems. Are there other suggestions to be made to make real people's revolutions more probable? Certainly, but based on what we have seen in history, this is what this blog can come up with.



Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Closing The Year Of 2013

The first item at hand is to pick the person of the year. So Time Magazine picked the Pope and there was some merit to doing so. The Pope was taking moral stands that seemed to have refreshed the Church. In addition, the Pope is personally ministering to the poor. And after the award, the Pope gave an excellent analysis of our current global economy--this statement, however, does not support his solutions.

But we should also note that the Pope takes such stands from a place safety and security and often receives a good amount of applause for doing so. This blog's pick for person of the year is Nadya Tolokonnikova from the Russian oppositional artist group that performed in Christ The Savior Cathedral in Moscow in 2012. Why? Because, for most of the year, she was taking moral stands as a prisoner and thus from a position of vulnerability where doing so invited threats and more punishment rather than esteem and applause. And what should be noted here is that this selection is despite the fact that the political views of this blog could very well be opposed to some of Tolokonnikova's political views. However, the moral stands she continues to take is to oppose the Orthodox Church's opportunistic ties to the Putin tyrannical government as well as the severe abuse of prisoners practiced in Russia. Her protest included a hunger strike. So what Christians in America are displaying her kind of courage and conviction?

In addition, every American should reflect on a quote of hers. That quote says (click here for the source):
People whose conscience cannot be bought is probably the most precious thing in this world.

Now of course when we think of consciences being bought, we think about others. Here, we tend to focus on corrupt politicians and business people. But shouldn't we also think about ourselves as well? How about those of use who neither protest against the status quo nor want the current economic system to change because we are doing well? And how about churches that only preach against personal sins but refuse to preach against the current economic system lest some members be offended and either give less or leave. It isn't just those at the top whose ethics and morals can be put up for sale, it is all of us. And one way we show that our consciences have been paid for is when refuse to confront evil whether it is practiced by individuals or by systems because of the consequences such preaching brings to ourselves. Where we are quiet in the face of sin for our own benefit, especially when that sin hurts the lives of others, we show that our consciences are for sale.

In addition, we American Christians must ask ourselves why a person like Tolokonnikova, who gives all of the appearances of being a nonbeliever, can muster and exhibit more courage than us people of faith can. Perhaps we have sold our souls to being comfortable as we use God's grace to rationalize our lack of involvement.

Rather than speaking out against injustices, it seems that too many Conservative American Christians prefer to live vicariously through the trials of celebrity Christians. Thus, many Conservative American Christians felt persecuted when Duck Dynasty's Phil Robertson was suspended for his comments about gays and Blacks and felt vindicated when he was reinstated. What this blog wants to focus on here is the temporary feeling of vicarious persecution many experienced.

Regarding Robertson's statements about Blacks, we should read a blogpost on the Political Jesus blog to gain an enlightening perspective (click here to read the post). What Robertson did with his statement about gays was similar to what Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-A did; he piled on (click here for Cathy's statements). Instead of being content with just calling homosexuality sin, as Dan Cathy portrayed gays as possible scapegoats should God judge America, Robertson associated bestiality with homosexuality by listing them together. Had he been the only Christian to do so, that might not have been a big deal. But too many Christians have made such an association by listing these two sins together that goes beyond calling homosexuality sin to stigmatizing gays in society. When we try to get a society to stigmatize a group, we are trying to persecute and punish that group.

This idea of trying to influence society to punish gays for their sexual relations even though some of their practices are shared by heterosexual couples refutes any claim of treating gays as equals.  And it is this association of calling homosexuality sin with punishing gays by stigmatizing them and promoting inequality that could result in a pendulum swing where the law no longer permits us to call homosexuality sin. In addition, for Christians to feel that Robertson's free speech or religion was violated by A&E's suspension is to show a severe myopia. To many of us take for granted the suffering and persecution we have caused gays while claiming to be martyrs when there is any push back. And all one must do to check this claim is to examine the history of how gays have been treated in this country by those claiming to be Christians.

But there is another problem illustrated by Robertson's comments. That problem is one of being content with limited exposure and ignorance. One of the reasons why Robertson said what he did about gays and about Blacks was because he has a very limited, if any, exposure to their perspectives. And though that is not good, it isn't the worst. What is the biggest problem here is that he is content with that limited exposure as if the world needs to listen to him but he doesn't need to listen to the world. And what makes this problem even more damaging is that Robertson personifies much of the Conservative Christian Church in America. If we Christian Conservatives wish to really improve our sharing of the Gospel, we need to listen to others as we would have them listen to ourselves. Our lack of curiosity regarding other perspectives have made us both dull and proud. The result is that we offend those to whom we are preaching for all of the wrong reasons.

Finally, a word of correction must be said to my brothers and sisters in the Occupy Movement. This word has been stated before on this blog but it certainly doesn't hurt to repeat it. It is obvious that the upper x%, where x can equal any number between 1 and 10, lives in one economic world while the rest of us live in another economic world. These different worlds produce an economic separation between the upper x% and the rest. And we should note that another word for separation is apartheid. Thus we should realize that we live in a world of economic apartheid.

What we did wrong in pointing this status quo out to the rest of the people is that we scapegoated the upper x% and thus we put them on the natural defensive. We need to change so that while we don't compromise on our analysis that we live in an economic apartheid, we change our words so that we implore the upper x% to join the rest of us rather than the upper x% the whipping boy. If we can make such a change, we might find more and more people who are willing to challenge the upper x% to join as well.






Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Today's Silent Majority Are Yesterday's White Moderates

In his Letter From A Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr  identified the White moderate, rather than the White bigot, as providing the greatest deterrent to freedom for Blacks. Here, we need to stop and think about his claim before we describe who the White moderate is. We need to stop and think lest when we read the description of this moderate, we would exclude ourselves from fitting today's version. 

We could described White moderates of the 1950s and 60s as those who did not want their boat to be rocked by the activity or discontentment of others. And so they opposed civil disobedience and the direct actions practiced by King and his fellow activists. They were against King's actions for two reasons. First, one should not break the law. Second,  drastic action is not needed to stop inequality now because, as Christians know, equality will be given to Blacks in the world to come.

King addressed both points in this letter. First, King understood the opposition of White moderates to direct action as a preference for a tension-free 'order' over justice. So White moderates favored compliance to the law because they had a higher regard for their own comfort than for what was right. And even though perhaps some White moderates could sympathize with  the plight that Black had to endure, correcting those injustices was not worth the disruption in the tranquility that came from an ordered society. For White moderates, personal peace, rather than justice, was king.

Likewise, King took apart the contention that direct action is unnecessary because equality would be the status quo in heaven. He merely pointed out that such thinking is the reason why those who work for evil are better stewards of their time and resources than those who work for good. And Christians who do nothing now because justice will be realized later need to take note of Kings's point here. Here King is observing that the rewards of doing evil seem to provide more inspiration for those who do wrong than God sending His Son to die for our sins does for Christians.

To summarize these two points in Christian terms we must say that those Christians who were not willing to do something to further justice on earth were not only failing to practice practice their faith, they were becoming the primary stumbling blocks to justice. Thus, they provided an even greater cause for injustices of the day than those who were actually doing wrong. And this point is not one that we can claim to be ignorant of. We are familiar enough with history to know that during WWII, allied troops forced German residents to tour Nazi death camps so they could see the evils that their inaction brought.

Who are today's White moderates? They are those who are not demanding that we change from today's economic class warfare, a warfare in which those who profit from today's economic apartheid are consolidating wealth for themselves and appropriating unjust suffering and hardships for the  rest--note here that today's battels revolve more around class than race. The Occupy Movement, which is actually an international movement, pointed out just some of the sins that those with wealth and power are committing in this current class warfare (click here). And though we helped further the economic apartheid by scapegoating the 1% rather than inviting them to join the rest of us, our accusations are being constantly confirmed by each day's headlines. And today's White moderates are those who prefer the serenity of today's status quo to the anxiety that comes with demanding change.

When we rose up, as seen in Occupy Wall Street and other encampments in 2011, there were so few of us that some of us subdivided the 99% into two groups: the 98% and those who occupied. Why the subdivision? It was because the absence of the 98% from the protests loomed as a greater threat to our work than the presence of police in riot gear. And it is because of this 98% that the message of the Occupy Movement has not borne more fruit than it has. For the current comfort seems to be far more important than justice to many if not all in the 98%. And the biggest shame here is on America's Conservative Church. For it has joined not only an idolatrous patriotism with the Christian faith, it has intimately embraced the conservative ideal of individualism as opposed to loving one's neighbor as Jesus described in the parable of the Good Samaritan.

To prove that the 98% has acted like the White moderates of King's day, one does not rest in the 98%'s their rejection of today's direct actions. Rather, proof can be seen in their steadfast refusal to practice in any legal action that challenges today's status quo. For they're turning their back on participating in legal protests, they are refusing to vote for third party candidates when it is obvious that the two major parties have been bought and paid for, and they abstain from spending any significant time in even reading about the injustices which the system they benefit from inflicts on others. Those actions are the least one can do to change our world. But, rather than letting the cries of the afflicted flame the fires of urgency, the 98% prefers to preserve their own place in the status quo. 

Certainly injustice has always been a part of human history but that is not the issue here. The issue is how do we respond to injustice. This issue becomes even more pertinent to those of us who are Christians because the God we claim to worship is heavily invested in pursuing justice. But unfortunately, our individualism redirects our focus from justice for others to what we personally hope to gain from our faith--that is we hope to be saved from wrath. Thus, those of us who are Christians cripple the credibility of the Gospel when we are content to be part of the 98% or the White moderates of King's day or the German citizens who tolerated their Nazi rulers by turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the plight and pleas of those who are suffering from injustice. 

So, again, the issue becomes how are we going to respond to the injustices suffered by others. Are we going to resist or we will become the biggest part of the problem?

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Is Snowden The Solution?

Edward Snowden will join a growing line of whistleblowers who have been or are being persecuted/prosecuted by the Obama Administration. The irony is that the candidate who promised transparency in government has become the President who has gone after more whistleblowers than all other presidents combined. And what is worse is that the liberals who elected him, for the most part, remain blindly loyal to him.

What Snowden revealed about what the government is doing under Obama's presidency simply added to the long laundry list of power grabs it is making. And conservatives should note that most Republicans elected officials are as anxious to punish whistleblowers like Snowden as Obama and his team. As we reflect on the fact that Obama is simply extending the surveillance and other abuses legalized and practiced by the Bush Administration, we find that extending government power is one subject on which members from both sides of the isle can reach out to each other and work together.

But it is not just government that is growing in power, bills protecting certain corporations from legal action and the government's own refusal to prosecute our largest financial institutions even for money laundering show that a double standard not only exists but is growing between those with power and wealth and the rest of us. Those with power and wealth are gaining more power and immunity from prosecution while the rest of us have more to be accountable for with less protection.

So the question is: Are whistleblowers, like Snowden, the solution to our problem with a more intrusive but less accountable government? The answer is obviously no because Snowden did all he could do by informing us of what is happening. The rest is up to us and that is the problem because of the current relationship between us and our government.

What is the current relationship between our government and the people? It can be best described being like the relationship between a spoiled child and his or her negligent parents who are too busy with their own interests to correct the child. As the child continues to get away with more and more, the child becomes impossible to work with until finally nothing can be done to help the child. So when we consider that voting every x number of years is the extent that people want to be involved with their government, the spoiled child here represents the government while the negligent parents represent the people. What role does Edward Snowden play here? He is simply a concerned neighbor who tells the parents what he just saw the child do.

Of course the analogy breaks down in that a spoiled child can do little to strike back at a tattletale neighbor unlike what the government can do to Snowden. But the real issue here is the dysfunctional relationship between the parents and the child.

Two solutions to this problem have been offered. The Conservative solution is to limit the damage the spoiled child can do by partially grounding him or her. This is what Conservatives propose when they promote "limited" government. It is simply an attempt to limit the expected damage done by the child.

There are two problems with the Conservative approach. The first problem is that because of the continued negligence of the parents, the child never grows up. So that even though some of the rooms of the house have their doors locked, the child remains spoiled because the parents did not provide the discipline needed by the child. The second problem is that because Conservatives put so much weight on defense, our undisciplined child not only has keys to the gun cabinet, he or she has a credit card with which they can purchase new guns. This is what we have allowed our government to become. It is a spoiled child who is armed to the teeth. This reverses some of the parent-child roles where the child becomes the boss and the parent becomes subservient.

The other approach is one that was preached and practiced by the Occupy Movement encampments. That is that people learn to rule themselves in a more participatory democratic system. This system preached repentance to both the 1% and the 99%. The Occupy Movement told the 1% to change by saying they must change the economic system by which they have become rich to one that is based on sharing and cooperation. And the Occupy Movement told the 99% that they can no longer be negligent parents. Rather, they must give up some of the time they spend on their own pursuits and pleasures to study and make the mature decisions that one would expect from adults. Unfortunately, neither the 1% child nor the 99% distant parents were ready to hear these messages.

And that is where we stand today. We should add one other thing, however. The American Conservative Church has, for the most part, contributed to our current state of affairs. How? By using Biblical passages like Romans 13 and I Peter 2 to make people think that they are the children while government is our parent. That means that the people influenced by the American Conservative Church tells people that it is not their place to try to correct the child when the child does something wrong. Thus, though the American Conservative Church is not telling the people to continue to be a negligent parent here, the end game is the same.

Regardless of one's religious views, what is important here is that people gain a sense of what they want government to be and then work toward that. That will mean making sacrifices especially in terms of leisure time. That if we want government to work a certain way, we have to spend the time necessary to effectively let government know what we want. We cannot afford to continue to be either negligent parents or passive servants. At the same time, if we direct government to merely serve our whims and tastes and do not require that government helps those who are most vulnerable, we will have gained nothing.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Unmasking a "Christian" Critique Of The Occupy Movement

He may be from England, but this Historian and journalist's criticism of the Occupy Movement might just provide the clearest reflection of the American Conservative Christianity and its own opposition from across the pond. This person's name is Timothy Stanley, P.H.D. Dr. Stanley has written articles for the London Daily Telegraph and the Washington Times as well as for other publications. And he has recently authored a book on Pat Buchanan called, Crusader: The Life And Times Of Pat Buchanan.

In a Daily Telegraph blog post entitled, The 'Christian socialist' clergymen praising the Occupy protests are more socialist than Christian. What about saving souls?(praising occupy in lieu of saving souls), Stanley laments the various levels of support that the Occupy Movement has received from religious leaders. Hence, the title of his article and this would at least indicate that the reason for his criticism of these religious leaders is that they have left their first call. But one suspects that his real objection is due to something else.

Though Stanley does provide a religious criticism of the religious leaders who support the Occupy Movement, his fault-finding is intended to discredit than to provide enlightenment. His criticisms of these leaders include their unbelief in the afterlife, their support for gay marriage, their belief in the redistribution of wealth, their belief in the ordination of women, and they're not being obsessed with saving souls--we should note that evangelizing does not contradict working for social justice and, in fact, could provide credibility to the evangelist. All of these negatives seem to be reason enough to say "consider the source" when these religious leaders lend any kind of support to the Occupy Movement.

Stanley also characterized OWS by several isolated, and sometimes serious, incidents and reported these escapades without having performed even a cursory investigation that could provide context. Stanley finishes this part of the blog post by asking what would Jesus say about all of this. Of course, we might counter by asking what would Jesus say about the greed and corruption inside Wall Street.

What is missing in Stanley's description  of OWS are its contributions and positive attributes. OWS has, for example, at least temporarily changed the national dialog and focus on to those in need. In addition, OWS has provided an imperfect but more than adequate example of different ways of being together and exercising democracy. And, OWS has, for the most part, remained nonviolent despite the harsh police treatment they have sometimes received. Whereas what Stanley mentioned were isolated incidents, the positive aspects of OWS are the norm and are exhibited by an overwhelming majority of its participants.

What is significant about Stanley's article is not what is found in the insights he provides, which are lacking, but in the similarities his criticisms have with the way American Conservative Christians condemn OWS. Most American Conservative Christians I've talked to would never go to an OWS event because these events are not designed to save souls. They give this reason as if those who protest could never preach and share the Gospel. Many American Conservative Christians with whom I have discussed OWS also characterize the movement by the isolated incidents Stanley mentioned and use these to discredit the movement. Most American Conservative Christians also strongly oppose any kind of redistribution of wealth and they often cite "religious" reasons.

In the end, what both Stanley and most American Christians do here is to give reason after reason for not even listening to what those in OWS and the Occupy Movement say. Both Stanley and most American Conservative Christians prefer to ignore OWS than to acknowledge the serious national problems that greed has caused. Both Stanley and most American Christians would rather publicly condemn OWS than speak boldly against the corruption of the private sector. And when both Stanley and many American Conservative Christians incessantly insist that one must first try to save souls, they are the last ones on earth to preach a message of repentance to the corporate world and our nation's financial institutions. In the end, what most American Conservative Christians I have spoken to want least is to feel compelled to make a prolonged public stand against corruption and ambition exhibited by the powerful and wealthy from the private sector.

What most American Conservative Christians have refused to acknowledge is that how they preach the Gospel has been ineffective in finding its way to the leaders of the corporate world and our nation's financial institutions. Though OWS has many faults, it is the only group that is preaching a message of repentance to the greedy and powerful. The established church isn't and probably with selfish reasons. And many conservatives certainly refuse to challenge the corporate world and our financial institutions to change. By pointing out the sins of only one group rather than all, Stanley shows that his most deeply held values that are offended by the Occupy Movement are political rather than religious.

Wednesday, May 2, 2012

Occupying With The Gospel

There is a question that the Church must answer today with regards to the Occupy Movement. The question is not whether the Church should join or support the movement. The question is should the Church challenge a corrupt system to repent.

Calling on a system to repent is exactly what Occupy Wall Street (OWS) and the Occupy Movement are doing now. I was there when OWS started its encampment on September 17. What looked like a one day protest became a prolonged occupation that served as a model for the rest of the occupations.

It might surprise some to know that the Occupy Movement did not start with OWS. Both OWS and the Occupy Movement in America are a continuation of what we saw last year in Tunisia, Egypt, Greece, and Spain. In fact, the origin of OWS has its roots in those earlier occupations as activists from those countries helped OWS get started. In addition, OWS has continued to receive messages of solidarity from activists in those countries. Finally, the protesters in the Occupy Movement here have many of the same concerns as the protesters there.

What are those concerns? All of the protesters oppose the corrupt ties between the powerful in the public sector and the wealthy in the private sector. They also oppose the increasing neglect of basic needs for a growing number of people. These basic needs include food, housing, healthcare, work, and time for personal growth and the enjoyment of life. What the protesters want is a political-economic system that is based on sharing instead of hoarding, cooperation instead of competition, and equality instead of dominance. They want a system that places a higher priority on people rather than on profits.

Now regardless of what one thinks of this Occupy Movement, the question remains. Should Christians challenge a corrupt system to repent? Some think repentance is not necessary. There is a simple answer to this. We only need to note that our current economic system is based on greed and it emphasizes greed much more than some previous economic systems. We know this for the system tells us so.

We know that greed is more of a problem now because the core value of the current system is to maximize profits. We should note here that maximizing profits acts like a black hole to all surrounding values including moral values. We know that greed is more of a problem today because many who support the corporate world tell us that the only purpose a corporation can have is to make a profit. We know that greed is more of a problem now because so many corporations are reducing the number of stakeholders by equating stakeholders with shareholders. And we see how the greed of corporations is hurting the lives of millions. The foundation of our economic system is greed and it is metastasizing to the four corners of our society.

Again, Christians do not have to fully agree with the Occupy Movement and its tactics. But what we should agree on is that the greed of our economic system is wrong. And not only is it wrong, it causes suffering, oppression, and even death. We see that greed is to our economic system what a demon was to the fortuneteller in Acts 16:16ff. Thus, we must ask ourselves if we are as willing to confront the greed in our society as Paul and Silas were to cast out the demon out of the girl. We must ask if we are willing to risk the retribution that comes from the beneficiaries of our greed driven system as Paul and Silas were from the fortuneteller's owners.

We do not need the Occupy Movement to show us how to preach repentance to a corrupt system, not when we have the Bible. Preachers like Isaiah (in Isaiah chapters 58 and 59), Jeremiah (in Jeremiah 22:16) and James (in James 5:1-6), to name a few, show us how to preach repentance to those whose greed oppresses others. They teach us how to defend the afflicted. With their examples, what is preventing us from providing the Occupy Movement with better examples of how to preach repentance to a corrupt system?

Wednesday, November 2, 2011

Why Many Christians Don't Occupy

Of course, the many Christians here refer to conservative American Christians, American Fundamentalists to be precise. My informal research tells me that conservative Christians from other nations are more politically liberal than their American counterparts. But try to get a conservative American Christian to join the Occupy movement is like trying to get a rabid American football fan to buy season tickets to watch soccer.

Why is there such resistance by conservative American Christians to occupying? After all, aren't those in the occupy movement trying to speak out for those in need and against those enslaved to greed? Why would any conservative American Christian not want to join a group that tells us that our future depends on how well we cooperate with each other? And why would any American Christian not want to join a group that promotes a more participatory democracy than what we have now?

Lately, some writers from the Left have attributed the political convictions of American conservative Christians to their faith. They feel that those who believe in Creation over Evolution or in a world where God works miracles as being incapable of working for Social Justice unless such Christians leave their faith. The problem with this line of reasoning is that there are conservative Christians who also promote Social Justice and support more liberal and even Leftist views. The majority of such Christians, however, are not American. And perhaps, this gives us a hint why many conservative American Christians are not occupying today. The reason for why they are not occupying is not because of their faith but because of something else. But what would that something else be?

When one is raised as a conservative Christian in America, there are certain associations made with the faith. One such association is made between American patriotism and Christianity. We, that is those who are conservative American Christians, have been taught since when we were in the womb, that our nation was founded as a Christian nation by Christian Founding Fathers. Therefore, the American way, at least back when America was a Christian nation, is the Christian way and to criticize our Founding Fathers is to ridicule God and to protest against this Christian nation of ours is to attack the Gospel.

We should note that to reconcile our nation's history with the notion that America was ever a Christian nation places enormous demands on one's logical skills. The genocide and ethnic cleansing of the America's indigenous people and our nation's abuse and persecution of Blacks, both up through and after the Civil War, along with our emerging empire and use of dictators as proxy rulers over other countries, make it problematic to reconcile our history with the Beatitudes. And even when our history is partially acknowledged by the conservative American Christian, there is an emotional disconnect that protects such a Christian from the dissonance that should arise. That is, we might acknowledge some of the abuses in the past, but we can still call ourselves a Christian nation and a "city on the hill" without batting an eye. In the end, what the patriotic American Christian is saying to the world is that, despite the evidence, we must feel good about ourselves. We demand our Constitutional right to self-exalt.

And what goes for American Patriotism, goes for Capitalism. After all, since Capitalism is our economic system and we are a Christian nation, Capitalism is God's preferred economy. We supplement this reason with some common sense. For we reason that since the greatest prosperity in the history of the world has been enjoyed by Americans and we practice Capitalism, Capitalism must be God's economy. Such an argument has a point. That is, we, in the nation, have experienced some of the greatest prosperity in the history of the world.

But there is a problem lurking in the shadows. For just as we must acknowledge the high level of prosperity we have enjoyed, we must also ask a very damning question. That question is, when in the history of Capitalism, has it prospered without exploiting large numbers of people? Many times those who were exploited were hidden from the view of most Americans though their invisibility does not contradict the fact that they were exploited.

And what has caused the Occupy Movement to emerge now is the fact that a too big to deny percentage of Americans have now become victims of capitalism. As a result, we have the current Occupy movement. This movement is challenging American Patriotism by opposing the wars and is challenging Capitalism by insisting that people and their needs have priority over profits. Thus to suggest that being patriotic and practicing capitalism has spread more evil than good is to try to Occupy the Gospel because of the close association many conservative Christians have made between it and both patriotism and capitalism.

But there is still another reason why conservative American Christians have not occupied yet. That is because the Occupy movement is seen as a protest movement that does not respect authority. From an early age, conservative American Christians were injected with spiritual steroids when being taught to respect authority, exclusively from Romans 13 of course, so that we not only learned to respect authority, we worshiped it. We see authority figures as our saviors. To challenge the authorities, as it states in Romans 13:1ff, is to challenge God himself because it is God who has put in charge every authority figure.

A side effect of our hyper regard for authority can be seen in our preference for labels over concepts and thus for credentials over reason. For example, we have taught to so respect our conservative teachers that we now have great difficulty in distinguishing between between conservative theologies and conservative politics and between liberal theologies and liberal politics. As a result, we tend to uncritically accept the tenets of conservative politics, not because it is biblical, which it is not, but it has the conservative label. Likewise we will automatically reject, and have a phobic reaction to, liberal and leftist policies because of the label. This knee-jerk acceptance of whatever is conservative and rejection of whatever not conservative enables authoritarianism. And just as self-exaltation is the reason why we equate American patriotism and capitalism with Christianity, so self-interest is the reason why we have a hyper regard for those in authority. That self-interest tells us to be good little boys and girls so that those in charge will reward us rather than spank us. And perhaps, it is a desire to remain children that leads us to authoritarianism's embrace over the self-rule that the Occupy movement has been practicing. It is the desire to spend more time playing than making responsible decisions, to spend more time enjoying our trivial pursuits than being bogged down with the serious issues of life and how we will be with one another that causes us to prefer rule by elites than autonomy.

Why most conservative American Christians won't occupy isn't because of their faith, it is because of the extra ingredients added to their faith. And thus to include them in the occupy movement requires that we learn how to exorcise those extra ingredients without attacking their faith.